Slip Op. 19-36
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
JINXIANG HUAMENG IMP & EXP CO.,
LTD. and CS FARMING PRODUCTS,
INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant,
Before: Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge
and
Court No. 16-00243
HARMONI INTERNATIONAL SPICE,
INC., ZHENGZHOU HARMONI SPICE
CO., LTD., FRESH GARLIC
PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION,
CHRISTOPHER RANCH, L.L.C., THE
GARLIC COMPANY, VALLEY
GARLIC, and VESSEY AND COMPANY,
INC.,
Defendant-Intervenors.
OPINION
[Sustaining the U.S. Department of Commerce’s determination on remand that Plaintiffs’ sale
subject to the new shipper review of fresh garlic from the People’s Republic of China was not
bona fide.]
Dated: March 21, 2019
John J. Kenkel, Alexandra H. Salzman, Gregory S. Menegaz, and J. Kevin Horgan, deKieffer &
Horgan PLLC, of Washington, D.C., for Plaintiffs Jinxiang Huameng Imp & Exp Co., Ltd. and
CS Farming Products, Inc.
Meen Geu Oh, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department
of Justice, of Washington, D.C., for Defendant United States. With her on the brief were Joseph
Court No. 16-00243 Page 2
H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Reginald T. Blades, Jr.,
Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was Emma T. Hunter, Attorney, Office of the Chief
Counsel for Trade Enforcement & Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Michael J. Coursey, John M. Herrmann, II, and Joshua R. Morey, Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP,
of Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Intervenors Fresh Garlic Producers Association, Christopher
Ranch, L.L.C., The Garlic Company, Valley Garlic, and Vessey and Company, Inc.
Bruce M. Mitchell, Ned H. Marshak, and Andrew T. Schutz, Grunfeld Desiderio Lebowitz
Silverman & Klestadt, LLP, of New York, N.Y., for Defendant-Intervenors Harmoni
International Spice, Inc. and Zhengzhou Harmoni Spice Co., Ltd.
Choe-Groves, Judge: This case involves a new shipper review of imported fresh garlic
from the People’s Republic of China (“China”). Plaintiffs Jinxiang Huameng Imp & Exp Co.,
Ltd. (“Huameng”) and CS Farming Products, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) initiated this action
to contest the rescission of a new shipper review, in which the U.S. Department of Commerce
(“Commerce”) found that Huameng’s single sale of fresh garlic was not bona fide. See Fresh
Garlic From the People’s Republic of China, 81 Fed. Reg. 73,378 (Dep’t Commerce Oct. 25,
2016) (final rescission of the semiannual antidumping duty new shipper review of Jinxiang
Huameng Imp & Exp Co., Ltd.).
Before the court are the Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand, Dec. 7,
2018, ECF No. 94-1 (“Remand Results”), filed by Commerce as directed in the court’s prior
opinion. See Jinxiang Huameng Imp & Exp Co., Ltd. v. United States, 42 CIT __, 335 F. Supp.
3d 1288 (2018) (“Jinxiang Huameng I”). Plaintiffs did not file any comments in opposition to
the Remand Results. Defendant requested that the court sustain the Remand Results. See Def.’s
Request Sustain Remand Results, Feb. 27, 2019, ECF No. 96. Defendant-Intervenors the Fresh
Garlic Producers Association, Christopher Ranch, L.L.C., The Garlic Company, Valley Garlic,
Court No. 16-00243 Page 3
and Vessey and Company, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioners”) submitted comments in support of
the Remand Results. See Def.-Intervenors’ Comments Supp. Remand Redetermination, Mar. 1,
2019, ECF No. 98. For the foregoing reasons, the court sustains Commerce’s Remand Results.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The court presumes familiarity with the facts of this case. See Jinxiang Huameng I. The
court remanded this matter for Commerce to reassess its finding that Plaintiffs’ sale subject to
the new shipper review was not bona fide.
On remand, Commerce reopened the record and issued supplemental questionnaires to
Huameng. See Remand Results at 3. Commerce also placed information on the record
regarding the ultimate U.S. customer for the sale in question, on which Petitioners commented.
See id. at 3–4. Commerce analyzed whether Huameng’s single sale of single-clove garlic was
bona fide under 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(2)(B)(iv) and, based on the record, concluded that it was
not. See id. at 4–25. As a result, Commerce continued to find that recession of Huameng’s new
shipper review is appropriate. See id. at 25.
Commerce released the draft results of redetermination on November 23, 2018. Only
Petitioners provided comments. See Remand Results at 24. Commerce filed the Remand
Results with the court on December 7, 2018. See id.
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
The court has jurisdiction pursuant to section 516A(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii) (2012), and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c), which grant
the court authority to review actions contesting final determinations in an antidumping duty
investigation. The court will sustain a determination by Commerce that is supported by
Court No. 16-00243 Page 4
substantial evidence on the record and is otherwise in accordance with the law. 19 U.S.C.
§ 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i). In determining whether substantial evidence supports Commerce's
determination, the court considers “the record as a whole, including evidence that supports” or
that “fairly detracts from the substantiality of the evidence.” Nippon Steel Corp. v. United
States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The results of a redetermination pursuant to court
remand are reviewed also for compliance with the court’s remand order. ABB Inc. v. United
States, Slip Op. 18-156, 2018 WL 6131880, at *2 (CIT Nov. 13, 2018); SolarWorld Ams., Inc. v.
United States, 41 CIT __, __, 273 F. Supp. 3d 1314, 1317 (2017).
ANALYSIS
The court found in Jinxiang Huameng I that substantial evidence did not support
Commerce’s decision to rescind Huameng’s new shipper review because Commerce lacked
sufficient information to conduct the bona fide analysis required by 19 U.S.C. § 1675. See
Jinxiang Huameng I, 42 CIT at __, 335 F. Supp. 3d at 1293. Commerce reopened the record on
remand and analyzed Huameng’s single sale of single-clove garlic according to all the factors set
forth in the statute. See Remand Results at 4–23. To the extent that Commerce lacked complete
and accurate information and supporting documentation for two of the factors (expenses arising
from the sale and whether the sale was made on an arms-length basis), Commerce applied facts
otherwise available with an adverse inference. See id. at 6–8. The court concludes that the
Remand Results are supported by substantial evidence and comport with 19 U.S.C. § 1675.
Because Plaintiffs did not file any comments on the Remand Results in the administrative
proceedings or before the court, Plaintiffs have failed to raise a viable challenge to the Remand
Results. See 28 U.S.C. § 2637(d) (providing that the court shall, where appropriate, require the
Court No. 16-00243 Page 5
exhaustion of administrative remedies). Commerce complied with the court’s order in the
Remand Results, and its redetermination is uncontested. Because there are no further issues to
review, the court sustains Commerce’s Remand Results.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the court sustains Commerce’s Remand Results. Judgment
will be entered accordingly.
/s/ Jennifer Choe-Groves
Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge
Dated: March 21, 2019
New York, New York